As it happens, there was an Ask MeFi question about "What is the plural of Batman?" in which opinion was divided fairly sharply.

To my mind, it's not that there's a class of ladies of which Gaga happens to be a member. Rather, a "Lady Gaga" is a (fabulous!) entity of its own. Hence, more than one of them would be "Lady Gagas".posted by Egg Shen at 9:16 AM on September 26, 2012 [2 favorites]

As it happens, there was an Ask MeFi question about "What is the plural of Batman?" in which opinion was divided fairly sharply.

But what if he's being used as a unit of measure? If Gorilla Grod is five times as hirsute as a freshly shorn Batman, does that mean the Gorilla People are 5 Batmans hairy, 5 Batmen hairy, or is their hairiness at 5 Batman?posted by Slap*Happy at 9:52 AM on September 26, 2012

Yeah, there's a real undercurrent of misogyny (Leather Boobs!) and homophobia (Gay Bane!) in the Avengers one that makes me uncomfortable. The Science Bros moment was worth a brief smile, the rest was pretty tone-deaf. Plenty of people like Captain America. The twenty minutes of Helicarrier repair was way more than just Iron Man fixing things. And so on. (COULSOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOON)posted by Tknophobia at 9:53 AM on September 26, 2012 [5 favorites]

Although, yeah, The Avengers trailer isn't among it. If nothing else, the Gay Bane crack doesn't fit my own mental images. I can easily imagine Bane walking out of a gay bar with a fellow on his arm, which my imagination is presenting as a befuddled Tobias Fünke, there because of a hilarious misunderstanding involving him attempting to get a job at Bain Capital.

Meanwhile, Loki is instead walking out of a hetero bar with a woman he picked up using his pickup artist training. Likewise, my imagination is painting that as Lindsey Bluth Fünke, who is making a terrible mistake both because of how Loki was negging her, and because he fed her some story about an anti-vigilante protest group he was organizing.posted by Drastic at 10:09 AM on September 26, 2012 [18 favorites]

For that matter, while the Onion article is one of my favorites, Safire would probably be correct to order "Whopper Juniors", given that the sandwich is a sandwich different from the Whopper and thus its own noun phrase, not a Whopper being modified by being younger than other Whoppers. OTOH, if a Whopper Junior was made by taking a regular Whopper and cutting it in half, then it might be appropriate to say Whoppers Junior.posted by Apropos of Something at 10:15 AM on September 26, 2012 [4 favorites]

I honestly don't think I'm opposed to the idea of making fun of superheroes or butthurt about people making fun of stuff I like, but somehow it almost always falls flat. The only exceptions I can think of are:

(And really, only the first two are sorta making fun of superheroes for being ridiculous rather than superhero fans making fun of bad superhero stories.)posted by straight at 10:15 AM on September 26, 2012

On the "bromance" part... I thought there was way more sexual tension between Stark and Rogers. When they were laying into each other verbally I was thinking god damn, they're going to go at it in a second, and I don't mean fighting.posted by George_Spiggott at 10:27 AM on September 26, 2012 [3 favorites]

I dunno, the part about how it blinds all nerds from admitting any legitimate criticisms

Not denying that people can be pretty vehement in defending their favorite franchise, etc. But the criticisms raised in the 'honest' trailer, at least, were not very legitimate.posted by Tknophobia at 10:30 AM on September 26, 2012 [2 favorites]

(Boy am I glad someone else went to "noun phrases" so I didn't have to.)posted by DU at 10:31 AM on September 26, 2012

But the criticisms raised in the 'honest' trailer, at least, were not very legitimate.

I didn't see the movie, but since when can Hulk control his rage as shown?posted by DU at 10:32 AM on September 26, 2012

Clearly it is Batmen if it is multiple people all in batman costumes. It is Batmans if it is clones or multiple of the same Batman from different dimensions.posted by Ad hominem at 10:40 AM on September 26, 2012 [6 favorites]

I think the point is that a major source of tension in the middle of the film is that he can't control his anger, and a scene or two later he can*, with no intervening explanation. It's really the only thing that bugged me about the movie. Apart from the fact that the SHIELD helicarrier is a fucking insane useless boondoggle that hoicks itself into the air for no very good reason and then the big threat is that it's going to fall out of the sky again. Jesus, why didn't they just put it down again?

*Apart from side-punching Thor into next week, and that's pretty much justifiable on any number of grounds, or just general principle.posted by George_Spiggott at 10:42 AM on September 26, 2012

My understanding is that he can transform at will into the Hulk, but he can also be shocked/threatened into transforming as well. So while he has control enough to do so at the snap of his fingers (and when this happens he retains some control), he can also be forced into it with enough trauma.posted by Twain Device at 10:46 AM on September 26, 2012

since when can Hulk control his rage as shown

Well, since forever, really, in comics, TV and film. Oh, there's always lots of talk about Hulk's uncontrollable rages, but there's a reason he's a hero and on the hero team. He may not get the job done elegantly, but he's nearly always out there saving the damsel in distress and punching the bad guys a lot more convincingly than he punches the good guys. Ironically, The Avengers actually has one of the least controlled Hulk rampages (when he goes after Black Widow)--Hulk never did anything near that menacing in any of the various pre-Avengers Hulk movies (he's particularly chivalrous about women, usually, a la King Kong).

But still, the complaint about this in The Avengers is a touch wide of the mark. There's HUGE foreshadowing of the Hulk getting himself under control. The whole point of Stark's banter with Banner is that Stark guesses that if Banner were to accept his Hulkitude rather than fight it, he'd find that he did, in fact, have more control over the Hulk (in other words, that if he recognized that he is the Hulk rather than talking about the Hulk as some other person who happens to inhabit his body he would also gain conscious control over being the Hulk). This point is called back to when Banner Hulks out in the final battle with the line about being "always angry." The point is that he acknowledges that the Hulk is not an alien presence but is an integral part of his identity...and all then follows as Stark had predicted.posted by yoink at 10:47 AM on September 26, 2012 [4 favorites]

My understanding is that he can transform at will into the Hulk, but he can also be shocked/threatened into transforming as well. So while he has control enough to do so at the snap of his fingers (and when this happens he retains some control), he can also be forced into it with enough trauma.

This is all but said outright at the end of the Norton Hulk where he is seen consciously invoking a transformation after presumably months of meditation and study as opposed to trying to fight/cure it. That's actually the whole arc of that movie.posted by The Whelk at 10:47 AM on September 26, 2012

I really liked the Capt. America of the origin movie. There's a haunting melancholy about him (the small guy who dreams big and gets to have his dream come true, but then can't quite overcome the feeling that it's all a fake) which is genuinely moving. In the Avengers movie that carries over really well (now he's got the whole man-out-of-time burden as well), but perhaps not sufficiently clearly for those who hadn't seen the origin film.posted by yoink at 10:50 AM on September 26, 2012 [16 favorites]

I think the point is that a major source of tension in the middle of the film is that he can't control his anger, and a scene or two later he can*, with no intervening explanation. It's really the only thing that bugged me about the movie.

Basically, the deal is that he can control his anger sufficiently that with advance warning and a certain degree of mindfulness he can keep it in check and turn into the Hulk on cue, but it's imperfect and there are still ways to trigger enough anger that he can't stop it from happening.

It's why the first change happens amid chaos and violence, triggering uncontrollable anger, and the second happens while he's in a much more calm state.

In other words, he can change into the Hulk at will, but it's not the only way for the change to happen.

Jesus, why didn't they just put it down again?

My assumption was the difficulty in finding a safe place to land something that big without crushing anything. As to why it flew in the first place...I don't know, 'cause it was awesome.posted by FAMOUS MONSTER at 10:50 AM on September 26, 2012

Also, who actually likes Captain America?

My 8-year-old son. He likes Captain America because he's almost the only superhero who is unequivocally a good guy, is never a jerk to anybody, and doesn't waste much time sulking. He likes Superman for the same reasons.posted by The World Famous at 10:50 AM on September 26, 2012 [10 favorites]

I would argue that the only way to make "Robin" the plural of "Batman" is to have multiple Timothys Drake.posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 10:50 AM on September 26, 2012

I dunno, Batman Maybe yt was a pretty hilarious riff on TDKR.

Bane playing the drums just never gets old.

Los Pollos Hermanos in TDK's Honest Trailer: I'm almost ashamed to admit that I only recently made the Gustavo Fring/Harvey Dent face/off connection.

From The Avengers trailer: "...who every nerd in the audience pretended to know"? Is that a joke? I'm hardly an Avengers or Marvel comics nerd and I knew who it was. (Oops, some quick googing revealed that it wasn't Hellboy. Yikes.)posted by fuse theorem at 10:51 AM on September 26, 2012 [1 favorite]

This is all but said outright at the end of the Norton Hulk where he is seen consciously invoking a transformation after presumably months of meditation and study as opposed to trying to fight/cure it. That's actually the whole arc of that movie.

True, but there are quite a few plot points in The Avengers that don't really make sense if we remember that scene. From the p.o.v of The Avengers the Norton Hulk appears not to be canon.posted by yoink at 10:52 AM on September 26, 2012

Oh I agree Whelk, I see nothing wrong with the Hulk in The Avengers(or the Norton flim, we don't discuss that other movie). I don't understand how people miss the simple answer as to why he can transform during that last battle.posted by Twain Device at 10:53 AM on September 26, 2012

My assumption was the difficulty in finding a safe place to land something that big without crushing anything.

It was pretty well established that they were over open ocean. Y'know, the one they took off from. We see clearly they're some tens of miles offshore because of the nuke delivery scene, and there's no suggestion that they'd traveled over inhabited land in the intervening time. Much of that was spent coping with busted rotors, for one thing.posted by George_Spiggott at 10:56 AM on September 26, 2012

It was pretty well established that they were over open ocean.

It's not clear the hull has sufficient structural integrity for it to float if they set it back down. Which would seem to put them in a bit of a conundrum.posted by yoink at 10:58 AM on September 26, 2012

From the p.o.v of The Avengers the Norton Hulk appears not to be canon.

It's clear that Banner can control it to an extent. Black Widow notes he hasn't had an incident in a year. Stark pokes him to see if it gets angry and nothing happens. Everyone is wondering how he's doing it, so it's clear that he can.

And reducing Black Widow to leather boobs is just sad. The character did a lot more in the movie.

Not that it matters, since the entire premise of the movie was probably Loki manipulating everyone.

We see clearly they're some tens of miles offshore because of the nuke delivery scene, and there's no suggestion that they'd traveled over inhabited land in the intervening time

It's clear that Banner can control it to an extent. Black Widow notes he hasn't had an incident in a year. Stark pokes him to see if it gets angry and nothing happens. Everyone is wondering how he's doing it, so it's clear that he can.

Yes, but as noted above, the Norton movie shows a controlled change at the end--not merely the ability to resist change when provoked. And there is not only no hint of the ability to do controlled changes at the beginning of The Avengers, they are explicitly ruled out of court multiple times.posted by yoink at 11:02 AM on September 26, 2012

True, but there are quite a few plot points in The Avengers that don't really make sense if we remember that scene. From the p.o.v of The Avengers the Norton Hulk appears not to be canon.

How so? It may be different from what people assumed from the end of the Norton Hulk (and likely also what the writers/director of that movie intended), but it doesn't really contradict anything. Banner figured out how to "control" the Hulk by being in a constant state of not-quite-Hulking-out. That means he can step over the line at will, and produce a relatively mellow Hulk in the process, but he's also that much closer to an "incident" if something does happen to get his adrenaline flowing - thus, nervousness.posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 11:02 AM on September 26, 2012

Yes, but as noted above, the Norton movie shows a controlled change at the end--not merely the ability to resist change when provoked.

The ability to resist change when provoked implies control. And when Banner does voluntarily change to smack the giant armored space worm, his method of control is elegantly hinted at: "I'm always angry."posted by Brandon Blatcher at 11:05 AM on September 26, 2012

There's the question of controlling the ability to become the Hulk, and then there's the question of being in control _as_ the Hulk. In two scenes that appear to occur on the same day, he's madly rampaging and threatening the structural integrity of Scarlett Johannson and less importantly the helicarrier, and a team player who takes playbook instructions, skygrabs Iron Man and joins the posedown on Loki.

Maybe the manner in which he becomes Hulk (controlled vs uncontrolled) dictates the manner of Hulk he becomes...posted by George_Spiggott at 11:06 AM on September 26, 2012

Yeah, there's a real undercurrent of misogyny (Leather Boobs!) and homophobia (Gay Bane!) in the Avengers one that makes me uncomfortable.

How is "leather boobs" misogynistic? I guess it might be inappropriately sexual (though not to my decidedly non-puritanical mind). But misogynistic? Making one joke containing the word 'boobs' in a video full of irreverent jokes in no way suggests the inferiority of females.

Or am I missing something?

I'll way grant you this stuff:

Plenty of people like Captain America. The twenty minutes of Helicarrier repair was way more than just Iron Man fixing things. And so on. (COULSOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOON)posted by Fists O'Fury at 11:06 AM on September 26, 2012

George_Spiggott: Exactly. There are degrees of angry, even for the Hulk. Transforming by taking a single step over the line (the on-a-dime change at the end) is going to have better results than being thrown across it at a mile a minute (a standard RARRRGH HULK SMASH freakout).posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 11:08 AM on September 26, 2012

That means he can step over the line at will, and produce a relatively mellow Hulk in the process

That is explicitly not an available option for the first half of the Avengers movie. It's exactly the burden of Stark's arguments with Banner--Stark wants him to think about being able to do this and Banner insists that it is not possible--that when this alien consciousness invades him, it is completely out of his control.

It's an explicit part of the discussion with Black Widow in the initial "recruitment" scene, too--and on several other occasions. The assumption that the Avengers starts with is that the "Hulk" is a rampaging, uncontrollable monster who visits Banner in unpredictable and uncontrollable ways. There is simply no room for the idea--at the beginning--that there could be such a thing as we witnessed at the end of the Norton film, a controlled and reasonably "safe" transformation.

As I say, I don't think that makes the later scene contradictory--the whole point of the Hulk's arc is getting him to the point of being able to control his transformation in that way. But it is to say that the film has wiped those last few minutes of the Norton film out of its canon so as to re-stage that particular part of Hulk's "origin story."posted by yoink at 11:08 AM on September 26, 2012

The character did a lot more in the movie.

Like be the central character.

(better be in Winter Solider just sayin)posted by The Whelk at 11:09 AM on September 26, 2012

How is "leather boobs" misogynistic?

By reducing her to solely her sexual characteristics in what is basically her only appearance in the video.posted by Tknophobia at 11:11 AM on September 26, 2012 [10 favorites]

Men who dress up in bat outfits -- are Batmen. There is no way that is not correct.

That said, Jason Batman and Justine Batman are collectively known as the Batmans.posted by Sys Rq at 11:11 AM on September 26, 2012 [1 favorite]

The ability to resist change when provoked implies control.

Sure. It implies control in the form of resistance to change. It does not, however, imply the ability to change at will. The fact that someone can slather anti-cold-sore cream on their lip and prevent an outbreak of cold-sores does not imply that they can bring forth a cold-sore at will.

Again, the film explicitly rules out the possibility of controlled transformation. Banner says this in so many words on multiple occasions. Are you suggesting that we're meant to understand that he's just lying to Stark during their arguments about this very point?posted by yoink at 11:11 AM on September 26, 2012

In two scenes that appear to occur on the same day, he's madly rampaging and threatening the structural integrity of Scarlett Johannson and less importantly the helicarrier, and a team player who takes playbook instructions, skygrabs Iron Man and joins the posedown on Loki.

It's the difference between dragged into the drama vs choosing to partake in it. There's a nice deleted scene that conveys Banner's inner turmoil and probably decision to help out.

It's exactly the burden of Stark's arguments with Banner--Stark wants him to think about being able to do this and Banner insists that it is not possible--that when this alien consciousness invades him, it is completely out of his control.

Here's a link to the script, can you find that scene you're describing? Not saying you're wrong, but I don't remember it that way. On the Helicarrier Banner points out that how Stark is able to stay in control is very different from Banner's problems.

Now I think I'm going to have to watch the movie again to refresh my memory of the scenes involved (the horror!). As I read it, Banner was talking about the fact that the savage Hulk - the one who goes completely nuts and smashes everything in sight - is always threatening to come out, regardless of Banner's method of "control," because all he can do is provoke the change at will. In times of extreme stress, he is just as big a threat as ever.

To use the coldsore analogy, he has a cream that can cause small, easily treatable sores whenever it's applied. This does nothing to stop the sores from flaring up on their own from time to time.posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 11:17 AM on September 26, 2012

Of course he's lying to Stark. If the Hulk becomes known as a tool that others can use, there is more chance of Banner being coerced/manipulated into Hulking out. He doesn't want to Hulk out, but he knows he will and if he represses it, it will be worse. Thus the "I'm always angry" - he's bleeding off some anger, walking the middle path between denying the Hulk in him and succumbing to it. I suspect the lack of incidents does not mean he hasn't been the Hulk for a year, it means he hasn't been the uncontrolled (savage) Hulk for a year.posted by robocop is bleeding at 11:18 AM on September 26, 2012 [1 favorite]

yeah if you assume Bruce is trying to keep his ability to transform at will a secret then a lot of his actions make sense and tie back into the Norton movie.posted by The Whelk at 11:19 AM on September 26, 2012

Maybe the manner in which he becomes Hulk (controlled vs uncontrolled) dictates the manner of Hulk he becomes...

Indeed. It's one of the various ways I can happily geek out over the Hulk in the movie, the physical transformations themselves. Like so!

The one in the Flying Moneysink has Banner fighting against it terrified, and Hulk can't stand it when puny Banner's restraining him. It really lights up the raw-nerve nature. And so the physical transformation itself is agony for them 'both'--it's a fitful thing, a jerky spasmodic two-steps-forward-one-step-back battle in the body before its completed. And of course Hulk comes out of that super cranky--and that's even before all the Loki magic mcguffin spear mental manipulation churning up the joint.

As you can tell, I get bouncy when I think about it. Even if the rest of the movie had been a disaster, I think I'd love it for the Hulk's handling alone.posted by Drastic at 11:22 AM on September 26, 2012 [19 favorites]

guys did you know nolan's batman has a dark and gruff voice because maybe i don't think i've heard about it enough and there's no reason it shouldn't sound as completely different from bruce wayne's as possible no none at allposted by beaucoupkevin at 11:23 AM on September 26, 2012 [3 favorites]

I'm still not buying it. We see that Ferris has his own family including a resentful sister, an enduring standoff with the school principal, and no suggestion at all that Cameron is pulling off a double life.

yeah if you assume Bruce is trying to keep his ability to transform at will a secret then a lot of his actions make sense and tie back into the Norton movie.

Exactly. I get the impression that everyone else things Banner doesn't have any control, but Banner knows different and he's not about to admit that. He'd rather just keep on doctoring people in remote villages, away from major sources of stress.

Remember when Natasha goes to retrieve him? He purposely displays fierce anger at her (in one of the best Black Widow scenes in the movie), but he doesn't change or even come close it. In fact, he was testing her and presumably the horde of troops he knew would be nearby. That subtly implies a huge amount of control, if he's willing to risk getting shot, just to see what the "other side" would do. That BW doesn't shoot him or call in the troops, despite being scared shitless, goes a long way to establishing trust.posted by Brandon Blatcher at 11:28 AM on September 26, 2012 [1 favorite]

Apparently a lot of people. Sorry if I disparaged anyone's favorite superhero. That comment came from 12 year old me who used to make fun of Captain America for not being as cool as the X-Men.posted by ultraviolet catastrophe at 11:34 AM on September 26, 2012 [1 favorite]

I dunno, the part about how it blinds all nerds from admitting any legitimate criticisms was pretty spot on . . .

Oh, hey, there are lots of legitimate criticisms to be made of the film. It ran too fast, there were missed opportunities, not everything makes sense... but I didn't see that out of the trailer here.

Lots of people like Captain America. He has always been my favorite, from the time I was a little boy first reading comics to my 37-year-old self. He has maintained a solo title forever, and Marvel can and does cancel those when they don't sell. (I haven't bought a comic in awhile, but that's about my loathing for Quesada and the direction the Marvel U has gone since the beginning of Civil War...)

Iron Man is plainly not a "secondary" character, unless you're one of those folks who believe that everyone in the Marvel U other than Spidey and a handful of X-Men is "secondary."

That's kind of what I'm saying here. Loki's "inexplicable" return? Not really inexplicable. He fell into a dimensional vortex thingie; it's not like his head exploded. Hulk doesn't entirely control his rage -- and much of the Norton film highlights his struggle and progress in controlling the changes.

So yeah. Again, there are plenty of things in the Avengers film that could've been better. These guys just want to be bitchy for its own sake. I felt like I was listening to the bitchy kids in the back of the auditorium making fun of anyone who might come on stage just because being bitchy makes them cool.posted by scaryblackdeath at 11:34 AM on September 26, 2012 [4 favorites]

Also, who actually likes Captain America?

I liked the Beefcake Machine in the movie. Wish I had one of those.posted by Blazecock Pileon at 11:35 AM on September 26, 2012

Also - Patrick Batman is the One True Batman.

Harold, it's Batman, Bruce Wayne. You're my lawyer so I think you should know: I've killed a lot of people. A girl in a leather catsuit in the apartment uptown uh, some crazy homeless maybe 5 or 10 um an NYU botanist girl I met in Central Park. I left her buried under the rosebed in the conservatory. I killed Thalia, my old girlfriend, with a baterang, and some man uh some old fat faggot with an umbrella last week. I killed another reporter with a chainsaw, I had to, she almost got away from the Bat Cave and uh someone else there I can't remember maybe a model, but she's dead too. And The Joker. I killed The Joker with an axe in the face, his body is dissolving in a bathtub in Hell's Kitchen. I don't want to leave anything out here. I guess I've killed maybe 20 people, maybe 40. I have tapes of a lot of it, uh some of the girls have seen the tapes. I even, um... I ate some of their brains, and I tried to cook a little. Tonight I, uh, I just had to kill a LOT of people. And I'm not sure I'm gonna get away with it this time. I guess I'll uh, I mean, ah, I guess I'm a pretty uh, I mean I guess I'm a pretty sick guy. So, if you get back tomorrow, I may show up at Harry's Bar, so you know, keep your eyes open.posted by The Whelk at 11:36 AM on September 26, 2012 [8 favorites]

Count me in on the Captain America support team. That film did everything you could want from an origins story. I'm possibly in the minority for also liking Iron Man 2 as well (not so keen on Thor though).

Reducing Black Widow to "Leather Boobs" was sad and probably says a lot about issues on sex and gender in the nerd community that should have fallen away years ago.posted by panboi at 11:46 AM on September 26, 2012 [1 favorite]

Lady Gaga's early work reveled in an avant-garde electronica aesthetic, but later albums such as 2011's Born This Way show Gaga at her musical apex. On this album, Gaga simultaneously embraces and rejects her spiritual progenitor, Madonna.posted by Mister_A at 11:47 AM on September 26, 2012 [5 favorites]

I'm possibly in the minority for also liking Iron Man 2 as well

The weird thing is The Avengers retroactively makes Iron man 2 a better movie (better! not good) cause suddenly it's not random lady and pushy suit guy, it's Natasha and Phil!posted by The Whelk at 11:48 AM on September 26, 2012 [4 favorites]

It's implied that Loki's scepter was influencing all of the Avengers to act pissy with each other. The scepter that was conveniently brought aboard the Helicarrier. Where Banner just happened to be and just happened to be assigned to spend a lot of time around. And strangely enough, the Hulk happens to be one of the few beings on Earth that is able to go toe to toe with Thor. Why if those two got into a fight on the Helicarrier, one of them might have killed the other, after wrecking the only Earth ship potentially capable of dealing with an alien invasion.

And he's so curiously unmoved by these developments! It's almost as if he's tricky and deceitful!posted by The Whelk at 11:51 AM on September 26, 2012 [3 favorites]

Returning to the post: Am I the only one who thinks "Honest Trailers" is really just a bunch of cheap and obvious jokes nearly devoid of cleverness?posted by uberchet at 11:53 AM on September 26, 2012 [2 favorites]

I see what you guys are doing but just not buying it! The kennings are all wrong.posted by Mister_A at 11:54 AM on September 26, 2012

For the record I liked the movie.posted by Mister_A at 11:54 AM on September 26, 2012

And he's so curiously unmoved by these developments! It's almost as if he's tricky and deceitful!

guys did you know nolan's batman has a dark and gruff voice because maybe i don't think i've heard about it enough and there's no reason it shouldn't sound as completely different from bruce wayne's as possible no none at all

Wanting to sound different from Bruce Wayne doesn't mean you have to sound like a 2-packs a day for 40 years smoker.

The best Batman ever, Kevin Conroy, didn't have to rely on a ridiculous voice like Bale.posted by kmz at 12:11 PM on September 26, 2012 [3 favorites]

Apparently a lot of people. Sorry if I disparaged anyone's favorite superhero.

See, that's actually just fine. In the comic books, Captain America's superpower is basically the ability to win you over and inspire you with irony-free earnestness. He's the sort of guy you see on TV and think he must be ridiculous, an insufferably hokey boy scout, but then you meet him and realize you'd follow him into hell. And there's an thousand-year-old awe-inspiring thunder god right next to him who feels the same way.

I'm on record as saying there was no way Chris Evans had the acting chops to pull that off. I think he's been doing far better than I expected.posted by straight at 1:04 PM on September 26, 2012 [4 favorites]

Also, I really don't see Hulk as all that controlled in the latter part of the movie. It's implied he'd happily start a fight with Thor again if he didn't have Loki and an army of aliens to smash. He saves Iron Man because Tony's pretty much the only one who was unafraid of him and treated him like a person instead of a bomb.

As for the final group shot, no one saw Hulk smash Loki. After closing the portal, the Avengers probably said, "Now we've got to find Loki!" and the Hulk replies, "Ha. Hulk show you puny god."posted by straight at 1:07 PM on September 26, 2012

Captain America's superpower is basically the ability to win you over and inspire you with irony-free earnestness. He's the sort of guy you see on TV and think he must be ridiculous, an insufferably hokey boy scout, but then you meet him and realize you'd follow him into hell.

And this is what they got right in the film. I remember reading the stories about the War Bonds performances during the production and thinking how ridiculous it sounded. Then you watch the film and realise that this is a clever ploy to shoehorn in the origins of his uniform.

It's implied he'd happily start a fight with Thor again if he didn't have Loki and an army of aliens to smash.

That's actually part of the Avengers' mythos i.e. "we're not a team, we're a chemical reaction!" Half the time, the team does want to tear each other apart and no sane person should put them in the same room at one time. But Loki isn't sane.

Besides, the Hulk only hit Thor once after Banner got control. That's a big step for a Hulk.posted by Brandon Blatcher at 1:33 PM on September 26, 2012

By reducing her to solely her sexual characteristics in what is basically her only appearance in the video.

Interesting that people are picking that out. I thought it was satire of how the movie treated the character.posted by not that girl at 1:35 PM on September 26, 2012 [2 favorites]

He has always been my favorite, from the time I was a little boy first reading comics to my 37-year-old self.

Wibbly wobbly timey wimey?

If I could be the sidekick for some heroic badass in an effort to save the world/universe/last standing In-N-Out, I would want to be sidekicking for either Captain America or the Doctor, yes. So there's that.

...I would also vote for Snake-Eyes, but he really doesn't need sidekicks slowing him down.posted by scaryblackdeath at 1:38 PM on September 26, 2012 [1 favorite]

Clearly it is Batmen if it is multiple people all in batman costumes. It is Batmans if it is clones or multiple of the same Batman from different dimensions.

From what I know of comic books, this is an important distinction that needs to be made.posted by cosmic.osmo at 1:40 PM on September 26, 2012

Fantastic Four = family from the beginning

X-Men = family by default and/or mutual support group due to ostracism

Avengers = workplace drama. Their only unifying characteristics are that they're qualified for the job and interested in doing it, but this is how you wind up with such a disparate group of folks.

(Also, I loved the treatment of Black Widow. I didn't get that she was used for her sex appeal at all. Sure, she's smoking hot, but that wasn't the point or purpose of the character, either in the film or in the comics.)posted by scaryblackdeath at 1:42 PM on September 26, 2012 [1 favorite]

Except that Black Widow is a central character to the movie and anyone who thinks her entire role was eye-candy didn't see the same movie I did.

1. Beats the everloving CRAP out of half a dozen Russians while -tied- -to- -a- -chair- and it's clearly revealed that the entire thing was a setup on her part to get information from them. Establishes her as tricky!

2. Goes to fetch Bruce Banner, and is commanding the SHIELD forces outside. Is clearly badass enough that they sent her to fetch the guy what turns into the Hulk.

3. OUT TRICKS LOKI FOR VITAL INFORMATION. That's right, she out tricked the Trickster God.

4. AFTER getting attacked by the Hulk is the one who volunteers to take down Hawkeye. And does so. And un-mind-fucks him by hitting him on the head.

5. Deadpan snarks during the big fight, and is the one person who thinks to get up close and personal on the aliens to see how they fight / how their tech works / etc.

Anyone who thinks she was just leatherboobs in the movie missed the point.posted by FritoKAL at 1:42 PM on September 26, 2012 [12 favorites]

I thought it was satire of how the movie treated the character.

In a film that struggled to fit in subplots for every character I think she did quite well. The interrogation scene with the Russians and later with Loki helped establish that she wasn't there as eye candy. Plus that whole hidden history with Hawkeye thing.

There's plenty of places a good writer could have gone with satire here, but no let's just go for the laziest one.

On preview: FritoKAL beat me to the punch!posted by panboi at 1:44 PM on September 26, 2012

Except that Black Widow is a central character to the movie and anyone who thinks her entire role was eye-candy didn't see the same movie I did.

Honestly, I was incredibly underwhelmed with Black Widow's role in the film, after hearing all about how awesome and feminist she was. She's hardly there! I honestly thought Catwoman in DKR played the same sort of role far more successfully and with infinitely more nuance and texture (in a movie that was more flawed, overall).posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 1:49 PM on September 26, 2012

Honestly, I was incredibly underwhelmed with Black Widow's role in the film, after hearing all about how awesome and feminist she was. She's hardly there!

Interesting, I thought she was all over the place but in a good way (i.e. getting stuff done) and a pivotal character. She brings in Banner, figures out part of Loki's plan (though a bit too late), saves Hawkeye, assists in getting the portal closed. She seemed busy to me.posted by Brandon Blatcher at 1:58 PM on September 26, 2012 [1 favorite]

Wow, that last line about Loki/Bane... not cool and not funny.
posted by ShawnStruck

Yes and no. I think it was pretty obvious that Loki was set up as the Gay Other to the Heterosexual Hero Squad (ironically made up almost entirely of dudes), so I think calling him "Gay Bane" is actually a pretty great take down of the film's casual reliance on easy sexual stereotypes.

Some notes from a blog post I made after seeing the film:

"Loki wears elaborate, fashionable outfits. Hates and envies his Jock Older Brother: Thor, (Heterosexual) God of Thunder. He has unresolved Oedipal issues with his one-eyed adoptive father: Odin, King of the Gods and All-Father. Loki's not really one of the Asgardians, but a Frost Giant -- are there Frost Giant women? -- so he seems to be the product of a mono-sexual masculinity. His chief weapon is a (phallic) spear given to him by a mysterious alien power which he uses to figuratively steal the hearts of men -- at least, his army of mind-slaves appears to be exclusively male (correct me if there were females in Loki's human army, certainly the main 2 were male: Hawkeye/Barton & Selvig). But, the transmission of his power is through contact, and seems to be a sort of infection of the mind, as well as a rape of it (cf. Hawkeye's description upon recovery). He wants to invade and enslave all of humankind, whom he commands to get "on [their] knees!" before him.

Loki is backed by an army of unisex lizard aliens. Led by a mysterious "Him," who is revealed post-credits (to those in the know) to be Thanos, the Marvel cosmic supervillain personification of Death (from Thanatos, the Greek daemon of death and Freud's term for the "death drive," associated by Lee Edelman with homosexuality, blah blah blah). Loki wants to open a secret dark hole to let in the invading aliens and their giant evil flying sperm whales.

On the other side, the heterosexual powerhouse of the Avengers Men (and Super-Hot-Super-Spy-Chick).

Tony Stark/Iron Man: Notable Playboy, now with Sexy Serious Girlfriend. Tony Stark's girlfriend appears more than any other non-hero female in the film. Scantily clad, also his personal assistant/mother/ego massager. And he says to Captain America that he's a billionaire playboy. So, he's super-hetero.

Thor: Super macho dude, in love with Natalie Portman (seen on a computer screen to remind us), plus that Sif warrior-woman clearly has the hots for him too.

Steve Rogers/Captain America: A man out of time, we are briefly reminded in a flashback of his lost love from WW2, who aged and died while he was frozen. Also mostly de-sexed except for two exceptions: one VERY notable, discussed later; the other the star-struck Waitress in an Old-Timey Diner outfit whom he saves, and who later talks about him on the news.

Natasha Romanov/Black Widow: Super-sexy Super Spy, damaged but deadly, with some sort of bond to Hawkeye, whom she fights with while fighting to win him back from the All-Male Loki Army.

Nick Fury: The father figure. Like Odin, missing an eye. Old enough, gruff enough that his patriarchal authority need not prove its sexuality. Still, while he isn't sexualized, he does have a super hot female assistant, loyal to the death."

I realize now that I never actually discussed what the other moment is when Captain America is sexualized, and now that it's been months since I saw the movie, I don't remember what I was going to talk about.posted by Saxon Kane at 2:00 PM on September 26, 2012 [5 favorites]

I realize now that I never actually discussed what the other moment is when Captain America is sexualized, and now that it's been months since I saw the movie, I don't remember what I was going to talk about.

Cap's butt shot, when he was boxing. Women audibly cheered over multiple viewings about that view.posted by Brandon Blatcher at 2:05 PM on September 26, 2012

I think it might have been that, or perhaps something about his interactions with Tony Stark. I would go watch the movie again to remind myself, but I thought it was kind of terribly lame.posted by Saxon Kane at 2:14 PM on September 26, 2012

My wife (and me, after she pointed it out) was supremely distracted by Cap's arms in the post-Helicarrier-attack table scene. It's supposed to be super sad and tragic but holy shit Chris Evans is wearing this tight thin blue shirt and his arms are just fucking amazing.posted by kmz at 2:14 PM on September 26, 2012 [1 favorite]

There's also the "Maria Hill checks Cap's ass out" when he first comes on the Helicarrier's bridge.posted by Tknophobia at 2:18 PM on September 26, 2012

Saxon Kane, are you making an effort to interpret the film this way--homosexuality bad, hetero good, yay hetero--or did it actually seem that way to you from your very first viewing? 'cause I imagine I could play this game with most any film, but everything you're saying seems like a massive stretch to put it lightly.posted by scaryblackdeath at 2:31 PM on September 26, 2012

I was only kidding about the Ladies Gaga thing, btw.posted by phl at 2:33 PM on September 26, 2012 [1 favorite]

I've never seen Hunger Games, which is probably why I found its trailer so hilarious. Lady Gaga, Phantom Menace, and monster dogs? Conjure me up.posted by Apocryphon at 2:36 PM on September 26, 2012

Saxon Kane, are you making an effort to interpret the film this way--homosexuality bad, hetero good, yay hetero--or did it actually seem that way to you from your very first viewing? 'cause I imagine I could play this game with most any film, but everything you're saying seems like a massive stretch to put it lightly.

It doesn't seem like a stretch to me when the only effeminate man in a franchise is the villain (there have been similar--somewhat valid, IMO--criticisms of The Hunger Games). And the film did seem to have a light case of the not-gays, at the very least.posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 2:39 PM on September 26, 2012

Tony Stark/Iron Man: Notable Playboy, now with Sexy Serious Girlfriend. Tony Stark's girlfriend appears more than any other non-hero female in the film. Scantily clad, also his personal assistant/mother/ego massager. And he says to Captain America that he's a billionaire playboy. So, he's super-hetero.

I have clearly read way too much fanfiction, because I have serious trouble imagining Tony Stark as entirely straight, and always mentally categorize him as bi. I can see where the Gay Other critique comes from when you lay it out like that, though. It never even occurred to me, because the most overt threat of sexual violence was from Loki to Natasha, and because I didn't really see any effeminate/masculine dichotomy in the interactions between Loki and the male heroes.posted by yasaman at 2:55 PM on September 26, 2012

Out of all of the male characters, he's the only one who is slender (or at least not ripped), and, as Saxon Kane puts it, dressed in "elaborate, fashionable outfits." It kind of says something about physical expectations for male heroes in our culture, if nothing else.posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 2:57 PM on September 26, 2012

Continuing the Black Widow's role in the movie...

6. Looks ridiculous shooting two tiny handguns at the alien army.

7. So she grabs and uses the alien weapons

8. Leaps up onto a speeding hover bike, wrests control of it from the aliens.

9. Flies up to the cube and shuts the portal.

I kind of liked that Cap, Hawkeye, and Natasha seemed at loss for what to do and how they could possibly help when they first arrive on the scene.

On the other hand, why was Black Widow the only one to actually try closing the portal instead of just believing Selvig when he says it can't be stopped? You'd think Thor would have at least tried taking a hammer to the cube.

(And why was Thor trading blows with individual aliens instead of smiting dozens at a time with lightning? The guy just likes to hit people with his hammer I guess, which is why he need Captain America to tell him what to do.)posted by straight at 2:57 PM on September 26, 2012 [1 favorite]

That's not to say that enjoying the film reveals hidden homophobia or anything like that, just that the movie seems to be participating in a pretty old fashioned argument about masculinity.posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 2:59 PM on September 26, 2012

That's not to say that enjoying the film reveals hidden homophobia or anything like that, just that the movie seems to be participating in a pretty old fashioned argument about masculinity.

You could make this argument, I guess... but I think it misses the point of the movie. This was an effort to put together the big name main characters of the Avengers from the comics. The line-up is therefore pretty obvious, and sure, they're generally muscular guys and fit, attractive women.

There'd be more screaming about portrayals of women if they'd gone with the Wasp instead of Natasha, as Jan is by far more deliberately girly. For a very long time, Marvel was quite conscious of making sure Jan never wore the same costume twice if she reasonably had time to change outfits. Jan is also a very smart businesswoman, and in the comics she has done a more convincing job as team leader than anyone but Cap... but she's "girly," and so folks would grouse about it.

You could make this argument, I guess... but I think it misses the point of the movie. This was an effort to put together the big name main characters of the Avengers from the comics. The line-up is therefore pretty obvious, and sure, they're generally muscular guys and fit, attractive women.

And villains are generally skinny and prettily dressed?

I dunno. I'm not a particular fan of the comic books (which is to say, I don't follow them--not that I dislike them), but if these are established patterns of villainy and heroism in them, then it's still flawed. You don't have to ape the gendered arguments of the source material and dismissing discussions of this stuff with "there's no making some folks happy" seems pretty silencing.posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 3:13 PM on September 26, 2012

Wait who are these nerds who didn't recognize Thanos?

The first time I saw the film there were people in the theatre who were all OMG DARKSEID. I had to be physically restrained from slaughtering them unmercifully.posted by elizardbits at 3:23 PM on September 26, 2012 [5 favorites]

I'm not trying to silence anything. I'm genuinely surprised to see this sort of viewpoint on this film, and part of me can't tell if these are serious, sincere viewpoints or just people stretching for the sake of finding a critique to make.

Sexism and gender hang-ups are serious issues in geek culture (to which the Avengers surely belongs). That fact is utterly self-evident, and it's sad, and it needs to be fought. I would never say anything to the contrary. On the topic of this particular film, though, I feel like the discussion becomes an issue of only seeing nails (sexism) when all you have is a hammer (concern about gender stereotypes).

I honestly thought Black Widow stole the show, and justifiably so. My sole complaint with her is that she smashes someone's face with her hair, and I felt like that was more a matter of bad/lazy fight choreography more than anything else (I felt like she was supposed to hit him with the back of her head and they just couldn't work it out). But she was the voice of reason while everyone else was losing their cool; she was, as pointed out above, the one that was sent in to retrieve the Scariest Dude on the Planet; she pulled off a great interrogation of Loki; and she pitched in on the final battle just like everyone else, even when massive, open brawls were clearly not her preferred method of combat. Hell, she's the one who actually makes the fight progress when she goes after the tower; everyone else is basically just treading water.

I don't understand why it's apparently bad for Natasha to be sexy. Hell, her outfit showed much less skin than... well, than entirely too many female superheroes. She didn't try to seduce anyone. She got through that whole plot on brains and mad skills, where most everyone else had crazy superpowers going for them. I thought it was an awesome character.posted by scaryblackdeath at 3:28 PM on September 26, 2012 [3 favorites]

And why was Thor trading blows with individual aliens instead of smiting dozens at a time with lightning?

Simply put, Thor is not very bright.

Tony Stark's girlfriend appears more than any other non-hero female in the film.

Uh, ok? She's not a hero, so that's not too surprising.

Scantily clad, also his personal assistant/mother/ego massager.

Shorts and a shirt in one of your homes, in preparation for an intimate evening with the significant other are scantily clad? Not seeing it that way, but ok.

And he says to Captain America that he's a billionaire playboy. So, he's super-hetero.

More like he's Tony Stark and arrogant about everything he does. Were he gay, he's brag about being super gay.

Loki was sort of a dark side of Stark: arrogant, full of himself and wanting to be at the top of whatever mountain was nearby. Build wise, he seemed roughly similar to Tony.

(And why was Thor trading blows with individual aliens instead of smiting dozens at a time with lightning? The guy just likes to hit people with his hammer I guess, which is why he need Captain America to tell him what to do.)

Loki shanked him with his magic tiny shank. I think the movie tried to imply this stole some of Thor's thunder.

please don't hurt meposted by Joviwan at 3:42 PM on September 26, 2012

As someone not particularly familiar with the comics, mostly I object to her lack of presence in the film generally--her lack of a growth arc specifically. Many of the male characters seemed to have far-better developed stories than she did. She simply didn't seem all that present, particularly compared to characters like the Hulk and Tony Stark. (I was particularly confounded by references on twitter and in blog posts to her epic romance with Hawkeye, which didn't seem to be really there in the actual movie.) It kind of makes me feel like I saw a different film than everyone else on the internet.

I think there's some argument there for Tony being a character with homoerotic subtext, but again, the movie really want to prove that no, really, he's straight, so his flamboyance is okay! There's no such argument there for Loki, which felt significant to me. All of these things felt kind of self-evident, but who knows. Maybe I'm just a feminist hammer in search of a nail. Whatevs.posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 3:43 PM on September 26, 2012

And why was Thor trading blows with individual aliens instead of smiting dozens at a time with lightning?

Are we sure he can do that at will? That maybe he doesn't need to give the hammer a few minutes to recharge or anything? Granted, this sort of thing could be explained with short dialogue or whatever, but then it becomes A Thing, and the film has only so much time. Hell, Cap's (arguable) best moment in the film--his "man out of time" sequence of loneliness--wound up on the cutting room floor.posted by scaryblackdeath at 3:44 PM on September 26, 2012

Out of all of the male characters, he's the only one who is slender (or at least not ripped), and, as Saxon Kane puts it, dressed in "elaborate, fashionable outfits."

He's no more slender than any of the other characters. He's just quite a bit taller than they are.

And you've seen Thor's outfit, right? I suppose one could reasonably argue that it's not "fashionable," but I'd put it up in the Pepsi Challenge against Loki's costume.posted by The World Famous at 3:48 PM on September 26, 2012

As someone not particularly familiar with the comics, mostly I object to her lack of presence in the film generally--her lack of a growth arc specifically. Many of the male characters seemed to have far-better developed stories than she did.

This is totally valid, but I think it's symptomatic of her earlier exposure being limited to use as a supporting character in a sequel (IM2), whereas everyone else (aside from Hawkeye) had their own flicks. Her growth arc is the least exposed of the other characters, but it's there: she's more comfortable doing the spy thing (undercover, stealthy, etc), but she has to suck that up and go into a massive open-air brawl with the rest, and in the end she plays arguably the most vital role. The boys smashed lots of shit and saved lives and all that, but Natasha was the one who kept her eye on the ball and got the Evil Gate of Evil closed again.posted by scaryblackdeath at 3:52 PM on September 26, 2012

I can't fucking believe they're making a stupid Ant-Man film instead of giving us all the BW backstory.

Her growth arc is the least exposed of the other characters, but it's there: she's more comfortable doing the spy thing (undercover, stealthy, etc), but she has to suck that up and go into a massive open-air brawl with the rest, and in the end she plays arguably the most vital role.

Of note, I think, is the fact that I did not see any of the other movies, either, but man, I didn't see any of that at all in this movie. I wonder if it's a matter of fans bringing in both history and paratextual material into a reading. Which is probably what I do with, like, Star Trek, to be fair.

He's no more slender than any of the other characters. He's just quite a bit taller than they are.

The framing of the film emphasized the physicality of the other male characters, and not him. Even in that shot with him paired up against Tony Stark, he's wearing elaborate (fabulous) body armor whereas Stark's got a sort of natural buffed-outness. A thick neck, and all of that.posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 3:57 PM on September 26, 2012

The framing of the film emphasized the physicality of the other male characters, and not him.

Well, his power is more in trickery and manipulation than physicality.posted by flaterik at 4:00 PM on September 26, 2012

******SHIELD SPECIAL ORDERS******

FROM: DIRECTOR FURY

TO: BLACK WIDOW/HAWKEYE

MESSAGE: GET THESE MOTHERFUCKING ANTS OUT OF MOTHERFUCKING BUDAPEST.posted by panboi at 4:09 PM on September 26, 2012 [15 favorites]

Scarlett Johanssen is short
posted by The Whelk at 1:26 PM on September 26 [3 favorites +] [!]

Did he wear that in the movie? Cuban heels and sansabelt slacks ain't exactly rough and tumble.posted by Ad hominem at 4:19 PM on September 26, 2012

(I know you're joking Ad Hominem but I've had some version of that thought like 18 times in my head recently in trying to put together ....stuff)posted by The Whelk at 4:40 PM on September 26, 2012

He's no more slender than any of the other characters. He's just quite a bit taller than they are.

Notice how in the fourth and fifth photo, Hiddleston spreads his feet and bends his knees to minimize the height difference (and the photographers find angles that minimize it as well).

I imagine a significant percentage of blocking in shooting movies is manipulating things to make the actors appear the right height for their characters.posted by straight at 4:49 PM on September 26, 2012 [1 favorite]

> "The first time I saw the film there were people in the theatre who were all OMG DARKSEID."

Um, I ... thought it was Darkseid. It wasn't untli several days later that I realized why that couldn't be the case.

C'mon, he looks JUST LIKE DARKSEID!posted by kyrademon at 4:49 PM on September 26, 2012

Making Tom Cruise not a wee little pixie is a full time job.posted by The Whelk at 4:50 PM on September 26, 2012

but Natasha was the one who kept her eye on the ball and got the Evil Gate of Evil closed again.

Natasha's superpower is that she's the only one who is actually doing her job and seems to lack any major personality problems.

A sequel did not work for Iron Man. We need Marvel to reverse the trend and undo some damage, hard, as Tony Stark is fun to watch in good movies.

I propose they make a prequel by taking the Iron Man 3 script and gluing watch parts on it. Iron Man Zero: Ferrous Dandy will be a hit, damn it.

I have math to justify this. Assume Star Wars: A New Hope is a good movie (implying it is not is grounds for a hackneyed nerd fight. By good, I mean, not bad or mediocre). Sequels to a New Hope are considered good. Even Empire, which I've heard complaints about, generally is just considered "not quite as good." Thus, sequels have a positive value. Prequels have a negative value per the general consensus the prequels are not good movies.

Therefore, prequels have the opposite effect of sequels using my huge samples of over 12 hours of video.posted by mccarty.tim at 4:55 PM on September 26, 2012

Or I don't know, maybe have Jeff Bridges come back in Iron Man 3 even though that makes no sense and then Tony Stark makes a wisecrack about it that pulls back the fourth wall and puts a lampshade on it or whatever kids say on TVtropes so it's all okay.posted by mccarty.tim at 4:57 PM on September 26, 2012

I'm still waiting for my Steve Rogers Attempts To Go To The Post Office movie.

It can be like Harley's Day Out.posted by The Whelk at 4:58 PM on September 26, 2012

Hollywood needs to do a gritty reboot of the Magic School Bus franchise.posted by mccarty.tim at 5:06 PM on September 26, 2012

I think the problems modern movies and genre books is "too much stuff", take out like 1/2 the "facts" people need to remember. In my memory, Iron Man 1 and Spider-Man 1 were nice simple movies. Iron Man 2 had too much stuff. Yeah the nerds said they wanted War Machine or they would boycott that shit, but who fucking cares what they think. Simplify that shit, deconstruct it. We only need 2 characters, a fall from grace and a redemption.

Here is my outline for Iron Man 3:

The move starts and Stark is even more of an asshole than usual. He is world famous and spends most nights partying till dawn. You see him at a club in the suit drunkenly doing dance moves. He is defiling the suit, using it as a prop to get laid.

Cut to religious zealot in jail, he is some sort of Christian that is against humans merging with machines. This motherfucker is doing like upside-down crunches in his cell Cape Fear style.He has a big tat on his back of Iron Man impaled on a cross, not crucified, impaled.

Cut to stark. He is hungover again. Everyone is sick of his shit. He is supposed to do a mall opening in his suit. On the way over he is doing blow off his helmet.

Prison laundry, the zealot is cornered by 5 Aryans. Before they can get him he murders them with a sharpened spork. The hacks find him and taze his ass.

Mall opening. Stark is barely coherent.

Zealot wakes up and everything is a blur. There are strange blurry figures standing over him. He is part of a top-secret super-soldier experiment. They are pumping his ass full of alien technology nanites, the thing he hates most. They have tried this on 326 people and none of them survive, they expect him to die.

Stark is at home drinking a magnum of Cristal and has like a glass coffee table covered with coke Scarface style. He gets woozy and passes out falling through the glass coffee table. He has ODed. They airlift him to the hospital.

Zealot wakes up and finds he is chock full of alien nanites. He flies into a rage and goes apeshit. He tears apart the prison and all the prisoners get loose, causing terror all across the city.

Once again I would like to remind everyone that there is an actual extant comics arc wherein the suit falls passionately in love with Tony and tries to touch his butt.posted by elizardbits at 5:53 PM on September 26, 2012 [4 favorites]

I've never read the comics so I'm pretty unfettered by the continuity.

Long story short. Stark has to get his shit together fast. He tries to defeat Zealot but gets his ass kicked. He goes to a monastery to get off drugs and booze while Zealot starts a reign of terror over the city.

Eventually Stark comes back and beats Zealot. Everyone loves him again but he is now humble.posted by Ad hominem at 5:58 PM on September 26, 2012

Considering Shane Black is writing the next Iron Man I just assume Tony will end up a supervillian who thinks he's a hero.posted by The Whelk at 5:59 PM on September 26, 2012

One of Tony's most compelling storylines from the comic deals with his no-shit-really alcoholism. They've built toward that in the first two movies. I hope they go with it. But you don't need comic book backstory for that; you just need to know that he's an alcoholic.posted by scaryblackdeath at 6:00 PM on September 26, 2012

Like that party scene in 2 that seems to come from a totally different, way better movie.posted by The Whelk at 6:01 PM on September 26, 2012

Yeah, he is already established as an alcoholic and he loves attention. That has to be his downfall. We need something that seems deeper than it is, like a deeper meaning about the perils of unfettered technology or "technology with no spirituality". His technological edge becomed tempered with ancient wisdom at the monastery. Seriously hollywood, you can use my concept, just give me an assistant producer credit or somethingposted by Ad hominem at 6:07 PM on September 26, 2012

We need something that seems deeper than it is, like a deeper meaning about the perils of unfettered technology or "technology with no spirituality".

I think that should go in the OD scene. He is pacing back and forth, wearing a red silk dressing gown, boxers and one black sock. He has his magnum of Cristal he is taking swigs from. Some dissipated looking woman comes in and embraces him. We have a tight closeup of her wispering "come back to bed Tony". Then a shot from the other side, a man walks up behind him and says whispers into his other ear "yeah come back to bed". That is when they both touch his butt.

Acknowledge that in the movie as an in joke for the nerds. When he is walking to the monastery he sees Stephen Strange leaving. He nods and says "Hey Steve", still kinda being a dick. When he goes and knocks on the door some wizened old guy says "back so soon?". I can already see the image macros, "Most epic Iron Man moment"

As much as I like this, I think I would rather see Planet of the Cats. I want Grumpy Cat cast as the technology cat who is smarter than everyone else.posted by Ad hominem at 6:39 PM on September 26, 2012 [1 favorite]

Grumpy cat is totally one of the evil mogwaiposted by The Whelk at 6:46 PM on September 26, 2012

Dunno. I think he is a long suffering wise cat. Maybe a cat professor at cat hogwarts.posted by Ad hominem at 6:50 PM on September 26, 2012

I had a frustrating day. This thread is redemption on a blue background. So much love (and yes, for Natasha and Loki and Science Bros and Cap/Iron Man and Cap's blue Helicarrier shirt and Jeremy Renner's arms).

Actual question re: the Ant-Man movie, since I dislike Ant-Man and haven't looked it up yet: is this Hank, Eric, or Scott? I might actually watch a Hank movie.

why is my avengers dvd not here yet, whyyyyyyyyyposted by catlet at 7:24 PM on September 26, 2012

I like his shoulders. *swoon*posted by deborah at 9:21 PM on September 26, 2012

Saxon Kane, are you making an effort to interpret the film this way--homosexuality bad, hetero good, yay hetero--or did it actually seem that way to you from your very first viewing? 'cause I imagine I could play this game with most any film, but everything you're saying seems like a massive stretch to put it lightly.

I'm not saying that the movie has any sort of explicit or conscious homophobic agenda. I am saying that the good and evil characters are portrayed in such ways that easily map to a rather cliched but still widespread heterosexual/homosexual binary. Perhaps a more precise way to state my point is that certain aspects of homophobic logic structure the film. The film plays with that somewhat, I think, with the "Bromance" elements, but I also felt like there was a certain amount of heterosexual anxiety. For example, when some agent on board the Helicarrier pulls up a jpeg of Natalie Portman. Were fans clamoring for a 2 second still shot to remind them of Natalie Portman's boring performance in Kenneth Branagh's crappy film? I guess you could argue that it serves some function with regards to establishing continuity and motivation, but even in that case it's completely lazy and ineffective. The only real point was to remind us that Thor's got a girlfriend, yo, so it's not weird for him to hang around with a bunch of dudes and never have a romance plot. Same thing with Pepper Potts. No one wants to see Gwenneth Paltrow in a superhero movie unless she's getting punched in the face. It was like Rachel McAdams' character in the first Sherlock Holmes film. She served some minimal plot function, but really her character was there to make sure that audience didn't think that Holmes and Watson were rogering each other.

And yeah, I was thinking all this as I watched it. I mean, I didn't think that it was as bad as 300, but it seemed fairly obvious to me.posted by Saxon Kane at 9:26 PM on September 26, 2012 [1 favorite]

He's no more slender than any of the other characters.

Really? I mean, maybe objectively speaking about the actors. But you're telling me that Loki was portrayed as being the same kind of bad-ass tough guy as every other superhero in the story? Note that I said superhero; Loki may be tougher physically than Bruce Banner and Tony Stark, but not the Hulk or Iron Man. And he's certainly not the brawler that Thor (or even Captain America) is, nor is he the ice cold, precise killer of Hawkeye.posted by Saxon Kane at 9:32 PM on September 26, 2012 [1 favorite]

More like he's Tony Stark and arrogant about everything he does. Were he gay, he's brag about being super gay.

But he's not bragging about being super gay. He's bragging about how rich he is and how much pussy he gets. And it's not like that's just some random happenstance; there's no way a big budget superhero movie is going to have a male hero talking about how much cock he can guzzle because many (most?) people will not buy into a gay tough guy -- Omar Little notwithstanding

Loki was sort of a dark side of Stark: arrogant, full of himself and wanting to be at the top of whatever mountain was nearby. Build wise, he seemed roughly similar to Tony.

His build compared to Tony isn't important when it comes to comparing their toughness/physical presence; it's his build compared to Iron Man.posted by Saxon Kane at 9:40 PM on September 26, 2012 [1 favorite]

In a dystopian future yt the rich dress like second-rate Lady Gagas!

Wait, they don't smoke weed in Hunger Games, do they? Teenagers killing each other is entertaining and all, but glorifying drug use is unforgivable.posted by homunculus at 9:54 PM on September 26, 2012

It's implied that Loki's scepter was influencing all of the Avengers to act pissy with each other.

Yeah, there was a real "I will take it! I will take the ring to Mordor!" moment with the sceptre (upside-down for some reason) with the Avengers bickering in the background. And who ends up with it, unthinkingly in his hands? Oh yeah, Banner. Also, check out Banner's gesture when Loki is being brought down the hall past him.

When I watched it the first time, I also thought the Hulk/BW scene was demonstrating that Hulk doesn't know friend from foe, so his later behaviour seemed all wrong. Watching it again, the signs are there. I'd be the first to complain if they telegraphed it with eyes glowing like the staff for a moment or some shit, but they get even a little subtle and people miss it (myself included).

Lots of other reasonable criticism, though. Especially that damn failsafe. You were being mind-controlled, professor. What the hell? OTOH, it had many, many nice touches. About half of this "honest" trailer rang false to me.posted by Durn Bronzefist at 10:46 PM on September 26, 2012

When he is walking to the monastery he sees Stephen Strange leaving.

I support your weird cliche "technology dehumanizes the soul of man" angle just for the sake of this moment, and to force Marvel Studios to cast Dr. Strange so that a movie can be made (hopefully written by MeFi's very own MGK).posted by Apocryphon at 12:11 AM on September 27, 2012

nor is he the ice cold, precise killer of Hawkeye.

FANS OF AGENT COULSON BEG TO DIFFER

Saxon Kane, your perceptions of the gender and sexual coding of the film--and particularly your belief that no fans like Gweneth Paltrow's or Natalie Portman's characters--are...idiosyncratic.

(And Kenneth Branagh's film was way above average for a superhero or summer action flick. The characters had intelligible motivations that made sense. Loki in particular was pitch-perfect. It had style, humor, Idris Elba, and it passes the Bechdel Test. Natalie Portman is a female scientist who is actually interested in science and not just looking hot to woo the male lead.)posted by straight at 12:42 AM on September 27, 2012

The only real point was to remind us that Thor's got a girlfriend, yo, so it's not weird for him to hang around with a bunch of dudes and never have a romance plot.

Again, interesting how people see things differently. I thought the point was to remind and explain how Thor could be back on Earth and not meeting with.

But you're telling me that Loki was portrayed as being the same kind of bad-ass tough guy as every other superhero in the story?

Yes and no. Clearly Loki doesn't go hurling into battle, but neither does it frighten him. It was clear that he forsaw being tortured would be an option and wasn't phased by it. I suspect the character views the muscle antics of the heroes as stupid and below him.

So yes, Loki is tough, but not in the way most of the heroes are portrayed. He wouldn't "fall on the wire, he'd find a way to cut the wire"

But he's not bragging about being super gay. He's bragging about how rich he is and how much pussy he gets.

He's not bragging about being gay because he's, well, not gay.

But in that scene, Stark was bragging about how awesome he is to a "living legend". Note that he mentioned his intelligence and generosity also. I doubt he was talking about screwing around, just that he had all these awesom qualities without the suit.posted by Brandon Blatcher at 12:58 AM on September 27, 2012 [1 favorite]

It'll keep him warm 'til morning when the speeders get here.

You mean the speeder with the pilot who's first reaction to hearing Han on the comm say "Good morning! Nice of you guys to drop in!" is to radio back to Echo Base to report that he's "found them"? Nothing in Han's statement indicates that Luke was with him.posted by radwolf76 at 2:51 AM on September 27, 2012

And Kenneth Branagh's film was way above average for a superhero or summer action flick.

I just found myself hugely disappointed with Thor as a film. The script was below par and the casting was a disaster. Natalie Portman brought the huge range of acting skills she'd perfected in Phantom Menace, plus we had to endure Hipster Exposition Girl. Oh and all the action was in a 2 horse town in the middle of a desert.

I really wish that they'd adapted more of The Ultimates' version of Thor which was a lot smarter - and also better at selling the concept of someone who may (or may not) be a demi-god.posted by panboi at 4:07 AM on September 27, 2012 [1 favorite]

Lots of other reasonable criticism, though. Especially that damn failsafe. You were being mind-controlled, professor. What the hell?

There's a lot of fan speculation that some small resistance was possible to the mind control, based on the scene where Hawkeye shoots Fury center mass directly into his body armor instead of taking a headshot.posted by Karmakaze at 5:33 AM on September 27, 2012

There's a lot of fan speculation that some small resistance was possible to the mind control, based on the scene where Hawkeye shoots Fury center mass directly into his body armor instead of taking a headshot.

The soldiers Hawkeye shot off buildings in Germany probably wish that was true.posted by Brandon Blatcher at 7:15 AM on September 27, 2012

The soldiers Hawkeye shot off buildings in Germany probably wish that was true.If they wanted to live, they should have had names. Unnamed extras in a superhero movie should know what they're getting into :)

So... is that a failing of the film? Are you disappointed that there is no LGBT character in the film? That would require a significant rewriting of an established character. Granted, they've already done that with Nick Fury by making him black (and presumably not a WW II vet), but I'm not sure what the point to that revision would be.

(TBH, I'm not sure what the point of the Sam Jackson Nick Fury was, either. I mean, Sam Jackson is very cool, but he doesn't even really does any of his awesome Sam Jackson schtick in the first place.)posted by scaryblackdeath at 10:55 AM on September 27, 2012

Blame it on the Ultimate Universe (an alternate continuity of Marvel Comics where everything started from scratch in 2001). In 2002, when Marvel published the Ultimate version of Avengers, they redesigned Nick Fury to look like Samuel L. Jackson. When Jackson found out about this, the story goes, he called up Marvel and said it was fine, they could use his likeness, but only if they let him play Fury if they ever put the character in a movie.posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 11:00 AM on September 27, 2012

So... is that a failing of the film? Are you disappointed that there is no LGBT character in the film? That would require a significant rewriting of an established character. Granted, they've already done that with Nick Fury by making him black (and presumably not a WW II vet), but I'm not sure what the point to that revision would be.

I'd guess what Saxon Kane is critiquing are larger patterns about masculinity, heroism, and sexuality in our culture and how this movie (and the comics franchise, too) is emblematic of these attitudes, not this movie's individual failings. These are evidence of sexism in our culture--that men who use intellect and not physical prowess are villains, not heroes (and tricksters can be heroic! Look at Odysseus!); that heroes are robustly and unambiguously hetero; and so on.

I, for one, am disappointed that there are no LGBT superheroes in blockbuster films--and I don't mean wink wink maybe she's kinda a pretty lesbian Irene Adler Sherlock stuff but real, genuinely out gay heroes. I don't think that's a particularly radical thing to say, that it's disappointing.posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 11:04 AM on September 27, 2012 [1 favorite]

There really needs to be a Lucifer Box like yesterday (what if we can have Modern!Sherlock Doctor!Sherlock and NewYork!Sherlock then we can have GayEdwardian!Sherlock)posted by The Whelk at 11:07 AM on September 27, 2012 [1 favorite]

(although Lucifer is more like Bond but whatever, Gatiss wrote it, adopting it must have crossed his mind, tell me the internet wouldn't like loose its shit over hot guys in vintage suits solving plots against the Empire?)posted by The Whelk at 11:12 AM on September 27, 2012 [1 favorite]

I'd guess what Saxon Kane is critiquing are larger patterns about masculinity, heroism, and sexuality in our culture and how this movie (and the comics franchise, too) is emblematic of these attitudes, not this movie's individual failings. These are evidence of sexism in our culture--that men who use intellect and not physical prowess are villains, not heroes (and tricksters can be heroic! Look at Odysseus!); that heroes are robustly and unambiguously hetero; and so on.

The Cap film does a GREAT job of highlighting his intelligence. The Spider-Man films... not so much, and to me this is their greatest failure. Spidey has always gotten by as a hero because of his powers--it's what gets him into the party, essentially--but the final triumph in any big story arc is usually a matter of him being really, naturally smart and studious, and the films consistently dropped the ball there.

It's worth noting that the comics in general highlight brains over brawn much more consistently than films do.

No, that's not radical at all, and I can totally sympathize there. The problem is that making it actually happen is difficult. When it comes to comic book heroes in film, we have to decide whether to retroactively change established characters or if we're gonna invent entirely new heroes. New folks aren't gonna have the long-standing pull of a Cap, Thor or Iron Man; conversely, re-vamps of characters with even less important angles than this (i.e., just giving Wonder Woman a long-overdue outfit change) can meet with significant resistance.posted by scaryblackdeath at 11:41 AM on September 27, 2012

I should also note: Marvel's "Ultimates" line -- a re-booted/re-imagined continuity from whence the Sam Jackson version of Nick Fury comes from -- goes a little further in having gay characters... but I should point out that the Ultimates line is a world where pretty much everyone other than Peter Parker is a complete jerk, so I'm not sure that's the place to create positive portrayals of the LGBT community.posted by scaryblackdeath at 11:44 AM on September 27, 2012

George_Spiggott: On the "bromance" part... I thought there was way more sexual tension between Stark and Rogers. When they were laying into each other verbally I was thinking god damn, they're going to go at it in a second, and I don't mean fighting.

Stark is the Errol Flynn of the superhero world. He's not looking for a commitment from a girlguy being with entry points.posted by IAmBroom at 11:48 AM on September 27, 2012 [1 favorite]

No, that's not radical at all, and I can totally sympathize there. The problem is that making it actually happen is difficult. When it comes to comic book heroes in film, we have to decide whether to retroactively change established characters or if we're gonna invent entirely new heroes. New folks aren't gonna have the long-standing pull of a Cap, Thor or Iron Man; conversely, re-vamps of characters with even less important angles than this (i.e., just giving Wonder Woman a long-overdue outfit change) can meet with significant resistance.

Discussions like these always remind me of the terrific Batman, Deviance and Camp essay by Andy Medford, which, for me, are a strong reminder that there used to be more room for queer readings of comics and comic franchises, but that room has slowly been crowded out in favor of more stringently heterosexual heroes. For Batman, "implied homosexuality" (as Medford puts it) was always present with the villains but also heavily present with Batman and Robin themselves and so the argument didn't seem to be one that so clearly pitted fey men against masculine men. But comic movies seem to draw a very clear line in the sand about this now, which is I think where we get the Avengers all having a case of the Not Gays. I don't think it would require much of a retcon at all to give us Tony Stark, billionaire bisexual playboy. Dude already flirts with everyone. It's just a matter of being overt about it with both men and women. But it will probably not happen, because, as you say, comics fans would be offended.

I just don't think that offense is something to be really proud of, I guess, particularly when such character developments could mean a whole lot to gay kids. Representation matters.posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 12:40 PM on September 27, 2012

oh man she says "widow" like it has 18 letters.posted by The Whelk at 12:56 PM on September 27, 2012

Hunger Games: isn't the fact that the Capitol is futuretastic while the Districts are dirt-poor part of the point?posted by divabat at 3:20 PM on September 27, 2012

STark is clearly robosexual

Yeah, the first time I saw the Mark III I was like "oic i guess i am now a robosexual". I REGRET NOTHING.posted by elizardbits at 5:33 AM on September 28, 2012 [1 favorite]

PhoBWanKenobi: "I, for one, am disappointed that there are no LGBT superheroes in blockbuster films"

The Watchmen film did touch upon The Silhouette's lesbianism, at least in the opening credits, both in their universe's version of the famous V-J Day kissing the nurse photo, and then her later gruesome demise after she'd been kicked out of the Minutemen.

The hints about Hooded Justice's sexuality were less overt in the film's flashback sequences than what was delved into in the original source material, but are still there.

Rorschach's infamous assessment of Ozymandias, "Possible Homosexual. Must investigate further," didn't make it in the theatrical cut, but that line of monologue was included in the Directors Cut in the home video releases. Featured in both, if for just a few brief moments of screen time, is the notorious folder on Ozymandias's Mac, labeled simply "Boys". Given the choice between having no presence on screen, and a having winking hints that call out to ignorant stereotypes like that, I'm hard pressed to say which is worse.posted by radwolf76 at 6:04 AM on September 28, 2012

The Watchmen film did touch upon The Silhouette's lesbianism, at least in the opening credits, both in their universe's version of the famous V-J Day kissing the nurse photo, and then her later gruesome demise after she'd been kicked out of the Minutemen.

If we had to have Warchmen prequel books couldn't we have had Hooded Justice and Captain Metropolis backstor? Red scare commie panic with superheroes wherein the closet is for nth sexuality and being a superhero and being a damned dirty red? I'd read that.posted by The Whelk at 7:25 AM on September 28, 2012 [1 favorite]

Watchmen Prequels? That's crazy talk. It'd be like making a sequel to Highlander. (Pretty silly that, a sequel to a movie who's tagline is "There can be only one!")posted by radwolf76 at 10:11 AM on September 28, 2012 [1 favorite]

Lots of interesting detail on Tor.com. So much for the enchanted Hulk theory.posted by Durn Bronzefist at 10:27 PM on September 28, 2012

Forgot the DVD was coming out this week, just watched his Cabin in the Woods commentary last night. Looks like I actually need to leave the house this weekend.posted by the_artificer at 12:17 AM on September 29, 2012

Tags

Share

About MetaFilter

MetaFilter is a weblog that anyone can contribute a link or a comment to. A typical weblog is one person posting their thoughts on the unique things they find on the web. This website exists to break down the barriers between people, to extend a weblog beyond just one person, and to foster discussion among its members.